Reoperation rates in minimally invasive, hybrid and open surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity with minimum 2-year follow-up

• Published in: European spine journal 2016-08, Vol.25 (8), p.2605-2611
• Main Authors: Hamilton, D. Kojo, Kanter, Adam S., Bolinger, Bryan D., Mundis, Gregory M., Nguyen, Stacie, Mummaneni, Praveen V., Anand, Neel, Fessler, Richard G., Passias, Peter G., Park, Paul, La Marca, Frank, Uribe, Juan S., Wang, Michael Y., Akbarnia, Behrooz A., Shaffrey, Christopher I., Okonkwo, David O.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data; Multivariate analysis; Neurosurgery; Original Article; Pelvis; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Spinal Curvatures - surgery; Spinal Fusion - adverse effects; Spinal Fusion - methods; Spinal Fusion - statistics & numerical data; Surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Vertebrae; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0940-6719; 1432-0932
• DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4443-2

Introduction Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are gaining popularity in the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD). The premise is that MIS techniques will lead to equivalent outcomes and a reduction in perioperative complications when compared with open techniques. Potential issues with MIS techniques are a limited capacity to correct lumbar lordosis, unknown long-term efficacy, and the potential need for revision surgery. This study compares reoperation rates and reasons for reoperation following MIS, hybrid, and open surgery for ASD through multicenter database analysis. Methods We retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter ASD database comparing open and MIS correction techniques. Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years with minimum 20° coronal lumbar Cobb angle, a minimum of three levels fused, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were propensity matched for preoperative sagittal vertebral axis (SVA), pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PI–LL), and number of levels fused. We included 189 patients from three propensity-matched subgroups of 63 patients each: (1) MIS: lateral or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) and percutaneous pedicle instrumentation, (2) Hybrid: MIS LIF with open posterior segmental fixation (PSF), and (3) OPEN: open posterior fixation ± osteotomies. Results With propensity matching, there were significant differences between groups in pre-op SVA or PI–LL ( p  > 0.05). The MIS group had significantly fewer levels fused (5.4) (0–14) than the OPEN group (7.4) ( p  = 0.002) (0–17). The rate of revision surgery was significantly different between the groups with a higher rate of revision (27 %) amongst the HYB group versus MIS = 11.1 %, and OPEN = 12.0 %. The most common reason for reoperation in the OPEN and HYB groups was a postoperative neurological deficit (7.9 and 11.1 %), respectively. The most common reason for reoperation in the MIS group was pseudoarthrosis (7.9 %). Conclusions Reoperation rates were not statistically different among the MIS, and OPEN surgical groups, but differed significantly on multivariate analysis with HYB group. The incidence of reoperations was twice as high in the Hybrid group compared to OPEN and MIS.